• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

Objective-J said:
actually it doesnt because he still has his freedom of speech :shrug: it hasnt been impacted or taken away LMAO

just like the day he said it, tomorrow he can still say he is against equal gay rights, nothing has changed
Click to expand...

yeah that's right...you can say whatever you want and people can punish or chastise you for it if they want.
 
Objective-J said:
now this is a point I can agree on as long as the actual stores arent doing anything wrong but his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed
Click to expand...

Your right his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed technically. But it is still wrong in my opinion to keep him from opening more restaurants because of his personal opinions.
 
OscarB63 said:
I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was a minority or gay owned business that was being denied the license. there would be shrill shrieks of "racism" and or "bigotry" coming form every rooftop in town.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of this? Any reason for your assertion? Is it relevant to what we're actually talking about? Or are we just throwing out random, immaterial suppositions? Ok, I'll try...

I bet you'd like the way I make pad thai. Sure, it's not authentic, but who cares? It's good.
 
digsbe said:
It has if the government is saying "we will punish your business because of your personal views."
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I think its wrong to stop someones business from opening just because their personal views. The government should not punish people for their personal views.
 
Objective-J said:
I laugh at that phrase to, its propaganda since that word is totally subjective
Click to expand...

No it is not really subjective. We wouldn't be having this argument about SSM if there weren't such thing as a traditional marriage. Traditional just means predominately practiced and accepted. I doesn't matter if you can point out examples of SSM elsewhere we have to deal with our tradition like it or not. Traditional marriage is real in the U.S. but now many disagree with the traditional definition of marriage. I respect that argument if not the exact way to change things. This guy expressed an opinion with which some people disagree. I would bet a lot of Chicago residents have the same opinion on the matter so it really isn't Chicago values so to speak. Not a free speech matter though.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
effect? so what
doesnt stop his freedom of saying what ever he wants
I could go to Cleveland open a store and always wear steeler gear and say I love the steelers, that could effect my buisness too, or people could decided to boycott me because Im a steeler fan, again so what

my right to say I love the steelers hasnt been infringed on

now as far as if I think its the right move or not, well Id need more info currently it doesnt seem like it but my original point stands, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech

lots fo things can happen because of what one might say, the right and freedom to do so is still there
Click to expand...

If Cleveland forbidded the wearing of any NFL gear other than the Brown's, would you consider your rights violated? Because that is basically what Emanuel is doing. Only one opinion is allowed. Either recite the proper script or be punished economically.
 
Miguel17 said:
You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people, he can give it whomever he pleases. Do you understand how that is different from First Amendment rights? If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. He hasn't broken the law, and he hasn't violated anybody's rights. You seem to think a bureaucrat deciding which fast food joint to give a license to is analogous to a judge deciding a murder case. There are no constitutional rights involved, no discrimination involved.
Click to expand...

And you would say the same for a business that would not hire or serve a "gay" person? They have a right to refuse service to anyone, the right to associate with only who they choose? You are a hypocrit of the most extreme variety. You would squeal if you and your boyfriend were asked politely to leave a restaurant or bar, simply because the owner did not "like" you.
 
as an Atheist, I stand in solidarity of the 1st Amendment rights of chic-fil-a owners. They should not be punished by government for stating their beliefs.

liberal whack jobs are going way, way too far on this.

plus, they have great food for being fast food!
 
I think religion should, and usually does, lose similar arguments.

But in this case, Chick-fil-a stores don't discriminate as far as I can tell, and if they do not, I don't see how you can prohibit them from opening, as government.
People, can boycott them sure. Other business can pull their adds, etc. But government can refuse their economic freedom, on the basis of the owners personal views? I don't think so.

Granted, I think religion in general is absurd, and certainly the whole chick-fil-a christian crap is annoying and silly, but if it's about defending their economic freedom, I feel like they deserve that protection IN SPITE OF their religious views. That's the whole point of justice, fairness, ethics.

The claim that a business is bigoted or discriminatory, because one of the owners is, seems absurd and trivially a bad thing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
And you would say the same for a business that would not hire or serve a "gay" person? They have a right to refuse service to anyone, the right to associate with only who they choose? You are a hypocrit of the most extreme variety. You would squeal if you and your boyfriend were asked politely to leave a restaurant or bar, simply because the owner did not "like" you.
Click to expand...

In my experience, ad hominem attacks usually come out when the interlocutor realizes they have no case. Not that it's relevant to what we're talking about or any of your business, but I'm not gay. What does anything you just wrote have to do with what we're talking about? Your unfounded and irrelevant assertion contributes nothing. I am a hypocrit [sic] of the most extreme variety because I (whom you don't know) would hypothetically squeal if I and someone who doesn't exist were asked to leave a hypothetical bar or hypothetical restaurant? That's your devastating rebuttal to my argument? Even if it were true, it would still be irrelevant. If you don't have anything constructive to say, you don't have to type anything at all. You can just sit back and watch the action.
 
Last edited:
Miguel17 said:
You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people, he can give it whomever he pleases. Do you understand how that is different from First Amendment rights? If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. He hasn't broken the law, and he hasn't violated anybody's rights. You seem to think a bureaucrat deciding which fast food joint to give a license to is analogous to a judge deciding a murder case. There are no constitutional rights involved, no discrimination involved.
Click to expand...

I bolded where you've really gone off the tracks on this. The reason a business is denied a license does indeed matter, very much so. If they are denied license by government because of what they said, that is a clear First Amendment violation.

You disagree with what they said, so you see no problem with them being punished by government, and that's no surprise - but it is shallow.
 
Last edited:
Miguel17 said:
You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people, he can give it whomever he pleases. Do you understand how that is different from First Amendment rights? If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. He hasn't broken the law, and he hasn't violated anybody's rights. You seem to think a bureaucrat deciding which fast food joint to give a license to is analogous to a judge deciding a murder case. There are no constitutional rights involved, no discrimination involved.
Click to expand...

It is morally wrong ( and should be legally wrong as well) to use your power as an elected official to impede commerce in order to espouse your own political or religious views. I hope the guy takes them to court. When it comes to issuing business licenses, if all zoning regulations (and whatever others apply) are adhered to, a politician has no earthly business denying the license on the basis of, "I don't like the way you think." First-come-first-served. This is just more bull**** and shouldn't be tolerated.
 
clownboy said:
I bolded where you've really gone off the tracks on this. The reason a business is denied a license does indeed matter, very much so. If they are denied license by government because of what they said, that is a clear First Amendment violation.
Click to expand...

You do have a point here. In the case where advertisers pull their support for what a private enterprise says or does is quite different from what a government body is allowed to do.
 
digsbe said:
It has if the government is saying "we will punish your business because of your personal views."
Click to expand...

nope it certainly hasnt, OTHER rights would be infringed on :shrug:
 
i believe there have already been cases on this from business and federal contractors taking it to the supreme court,ill have to find the case,but if i remember correctly discriminating against any business for political views was deemed illegal,since the government cannot discriminate against building permits,contracts etc for any reason,rather it would have to be an actual business related/zoning issue for denial.

to top this off its already known that the permit was blocked for politicalmotives,i guarantee if it was taken to the supreme court,chick fil a would win easily.


also to note not allowing bussiness for political reasons,or only allowing business that agree with certain doctrines,is a well know practice in this little thing called fascism.
 
clownboy said:
I bolded where you've really gone off the tracks on this. The reason a business is denied a license does indeed matter, very much so. If they are denied license by government because of what they said, that is a clear First Amendment violation.

You disagree with what they said, so you see no problem with them being punished by government, and that's no surprise - but it is shallow.
Click to expand...

Where was your reasoning for this during the Ground Zero mosque debate?

Can you show me the legal basis for what you said? I'm no law expert, but I don't know of any case where what you just asserted has been upheld. I'm not saying you're wrong, you may be right and if so I will admit my mistake. But show me the proof if it exists. Because I don't think there's the constitutional basis for what you said.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Nonsense. The difference is that a boycott is a private sector action. This is government doing this.
Click to expand...

no not nonsense at all, doesnt matter, his freedom of speech would still exist, it didnt go anywhere

they would be violating his right to not be discriminated against IF they are doing it unfairly
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah that's right...you can say whatever you want and people can punish or chastise you for it if they want.
Click to expand...

thats not what I said at all but nice try LMAO

but in general this is true depending on what you consider punishment
 
beerftw said:
i believe there have already been cases on this from business and federal contractors taking it to the supreme court,ill have to find the case,but if i remember correctly discriminating against any business for political views was deemed illegal,since the government cannot discriminate against building permits,contracts etc for any reason,rather it would have to be an actual business related/zoning issue for denial.

to top this off its already known that the permit was blocked for politicalmotives,i guarantee if it was taken to the supreme court,chick fil a would win easily.


also to note not allowing bussiness for political reasons,or only allowing business that agree with certain doctrines,is a well know practice in this little thing called fascism.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

"We're only going to give business licenses to Democrats."
"We're only going to give business licenses to Catholics."
"We're only going to give business licenses to union shops."
Ad Infinitum.

If this isn't illegal? It should be.

BTW, Boston's mayor did the same thing last week.
 
Last edited:
Omgitsme said:
Your right his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed technically. But it is still wrong in my opinion to keep him from opening more restaurants because of his personal opinions.
Click to expand...

maybe its wrong, dont know what the rules are, but I have to agree it certainly seems wrong by legal standards. If theres some weird "ethics code" in the previsions to be granted buisness locations then it could be legal.

again I would say its SHADY and seems wrong though
 
Miguel17 said:
In my experience, ad hominem attacks usually come out when the interlocutor realizes they have no case. Not that it's relevant to what we're talking about or any of your business, but I'm not gay. What does anything you just wrote have to do with what we're talking about? Your unfounded and irrelevant assertion contributes nothing. I am a hypocrit [sic] of the most extreme variety because I (whom you don't know) would hypothetically squeal if I and someone who doesn't exist were asked to leave a hypothetical bar or hypothetical restaurant? That's your devastating rebuttal to my argument? Even if it were true, it would still be irrelevant. If you don't have anything constructive to say, you don't have to type anything at all. You can just sit back and watch the action.
Click to expand...

My post was different from stating that YOUR values are not MY values so you may not do business in this town how? Is this not what you support; each is free to do as they please without regard to the rights of others? If our opinons differ then you must look elsewhere to do business?
 
jambalaya said:
No it is not really subjective. We wouldn't be having this argument about SSM if there weren't such thing as a traditional marriage. Traditional just means predominately practiced and accepted. I doesn't matter if you can point out examples of SSM elsewhere we have to deal with our tradition like it or not. Traditional marriage is real in the U.S. but now many disagree with the traditional definition of marriage. I respect that argument if not the exact way to change things. This guy expressed an opinion with which some people disagree. I would bet a lot of Chicago residents have the same opinion on the matter so it really isn't Chicago values so to speak. Not a free speech matter though.
Click to expand...

more propaganda

and YES it is 100% subjective and thats a fact
 
jerry7 said:
If Cleveland forbidded the wearing of any NFL gear other than the Brown's, would you consider your rights violated? Because that is basically what Emanuel is doing. Only one opinion is allowed. Either recite the proper script or be punished economically.
Click to expand...

no that is not what is going on at all, sorry your example is not a parallel
 
I don't eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants because they put a LOT of money towards causes that, IMHO, discriminate against gays. No problem there. I can eat wherever I wish. You can call me a poopy head, or whatever, all you like, for choosing to not eat there for the reasons I gave. I will still not eat there.

Now here's the rub. I am NOT the government. I am an individual who is exercising my choices. However, the government has no business whatsoever telling it's constituents what kind of restaurants they will be allowed to eat at, and which ones they won't be allowed to eat at. If Chick-fil-A is really that much at odds with community standards, then I am sure they will go out of business if that community decides to boycott them. In that case, Chick-fil-A has made a bad business decision, and of course will pay the price for that bad decision. But community standards are not determined by the government, but by the COMMUNITY. That's why they are called community standards, and not government standards.

Enough of my rambling. Let me just sum everything up in my own words............................

To the government - A poem just for you..........

Roses are shut the **** up
Violets are shut the **** up
Shut the **** up
Shut the **** up.

/poem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom